Portestant arguments

[Valtiel]

When I was a protestant I used to rely on “Bible Questions Answered” website by a strict protestant theology.

I have since left all that behind and returned back to the catholic faith, ( I was babtized a catholic and went to masses when I was young)

Any way I went searching this site for some of their anti catholic responces to some questions and some ant catholic arguments, and some of them are quite hard for me to get around, most of them adress specific points that aren’t adressed in the catholic ansers library…

The Immaculate Conception:

Many people mistakenly believe that the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate…but this concept does not refer to Jesus at all. The immaculate conception is a doctrine of the Romans Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. An official statement of the doctrine reads, “…the blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.” Essentially the immaculate conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature. Some go so far as to teach that Mary was, in fact, sinless.

The problem with the doctrine of the immaculate conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

The doctrine of the immaculate conception originated out of confusion over how Jesus Christ could be born sinless if He was conceived inside of a sinful human female. The thought was that Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary had she been a sinner. In contrast to the immaculate conception, the Biblical solution to this problem is understanding that Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary’s womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary or Biblical.

So, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is neither Biblical or necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the Biblical concept of the virgin birth. The Bible does not even hint that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

 

[Valtiel]

Praying to Mary and the Saints:

There are the following issues to consider regarding this topic of prayer and Mary instead of to God alone.

(1) We are told to pray to God (Luke 11:1-2; Matthew 6:6-9; Philippians 4:6; Acts 8:22; Luke 10:2). (2) There is only the repeated example of two things in Scripture: a) Prayer is made to God alone (by righteous people) (Romans 10:1; Romans 15:30; Acts 12:5; Acts 10:2; Acts 8:24; Acts 1:24; Zechariah 8:21-22; Jonah 2:7; 4:2) b) Requests for prayer are made only to the living (1Thessalonians 5:25; 2Thessalonians 3:1; Hebrews 13:18). (3) We are never told to communicate with the dead (even with prayer requests). When Saul tried to communicate with Samuel, it was deemed an evil thing, not a good thing (those who support praying to the saints may say it was only deemed evil because of the manner in which he sought to do it…through witchcraft). It is interesting to note that Samuel told Saul that if God wasn’t listening to him, there was nothing that he could do then either (1 Samuel 28:16).

(4) We are never told to pray to angels and when people had occasion to talk with any angel besides the Angel of the Lord (the pre-incarnate Christ) and tried to worship them, they were told to stop and worship God alone (Revelation 19:10; 22:9; Colossians 2:18). (5) We are never told that the dead know what is going on the earth (some think it is possible based on one interpretation of Hebrews 12:1). (6) God alone is omniscient and omnipresent. He alone is able to hear a multitude of prayers simultaneously. He is the one who commands angels and sends them to do His bidding (Daniel 9:20-23). (7) Angels (Daniel 9:20-23) and the spirits of the dead remain finite (Luke 16:19f.), limited to one location at a time.

(8) The Catholics statement that they go to angels, saints, and Mary to ask for prayer is not consistent with the normal practice of asking for prayer. For example, in the saying of the Rosary the large majority of the time is spent in devotion to Mary and then they ask her to pray for them now and at the hour of their death (they pray this same prayer 50 times). Whereas, when I ask someone to pray for me, I don’t ask them over and over and over again minute after minute. Rather, I ask them to pray and then should be spending my time on my knees before God not before them. (9) God promised to hear us when we ask anything according to His will (1 John 5:14-15; 1 Peter 3:12). He entreats us to come boldly unto the throne of grace (His throne) that we may find grace and help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14).

(10) God promised us that the Holy Spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God with groanings that cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26). Considering such truths, why do we need to go through a saint, angel or Mary, especially considering the fact that neither the example of doing so, nor the command of doing so is ever given in Scripture? The Catholic Church cites the example of the wedding feast (John 2) as an example of Mary getting Jesus to do something for others and uses that as a proof text for prayer to her, but to use this example to support such a doctrine that flies in the face of countless other admonitions and examples of praying to God alone is ridiculous.

Thus, not only is it contrary to Scriptural admonition to pray to God and Scriptural example to do so, but it is illogical to substitute praying to an all-loving, omniscient, and omnipotent God who invites us to come before His throne because He is completely acquainted with all of our doings (Psalm 139) to pray to some saint who can only listen to one conversation at a time (all the time not ever being sure if the saints in heaven know what is taking place in our lives here on earth). God’s Word says that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Let us then come to God through His work on the cross of Calvary, not only for salvation, but also for our needs as well (Hebrews 4:14).

 

[Valtiel]

Transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:

“The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

In other words, the Roman Catholic church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord’s Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread), and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). This is a decidedly unbiblical doctrine. The Scriptures are wholly silent on the notion of the transubstantiation of the elements of the Lord’s Supper. The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ, not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is taught by Catholics as being found in such Scripture passages as John 6:55, which says “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”, and Matthew 26:26, which says “Take and eat; this is my body.” However, these are clearly metaphoric. Christ says that His flesh is real food and blood is real drink, not, “My food is real flesh and my drink is real blood”. Furthermore, when Jesus says, “This is my body”, it means “This represents my body”. The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is because it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a “re-sacrifice” of Jesus Christ for our sins. Jesus died “once for all” and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18).

 

[Valtiel]

apostolic succession:

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). They believe that He later became the first bishop of Rome and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. They then believe that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishops of Rome, thus the teaching of apostolic succession. They also claim that all other churches broke away from them, the original and one true church. But nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Never is it anything like it mentioned in Scripture, and because of that fact, never is it seen as the qualification of the “true church.” What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not some infallible leader. It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12).

According to the Roman Catholic Church, it is not sufficient that a denomination be able to merely cite an unbroken list of church leaders leading back to Peter (such as the Anglican Church does), but rather a church must also follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” If one uses this latter measuring stick and compares the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and practices with those of the original church as recorded in the New Testament, one must come away with the understanding that while they may claim an unbroken line of Roman bishops from the time of Peter, many of their core teachings certainly do not belong to the same church that Peter belonged to…as described by the New Testament. For in the New Testament we find nothing of any of the following: a dispensing of grace through the receiving of the sacraments, the Catholic priesthood which alone is able to transform the bread and wine of the communion service into the actual body and blood of Christ, the offering of the Eucharist as a continuing sacrifice in order to gain grace for those living and those who in purgatory, the adoration of Mary and prayer to her and the saints along with the falling down before statues of the same, confession to a priest, purgatory, and so on.

In short, apostolic succession is never found in Scripture and is thus never seen as the basis for determining the “true church.” What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right and what is not. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise. And often their heresies are based upon different interpretations of some passages; but in important matters, the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture, i.e., taking verses in their context. Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church

.

 

[Valtiel]

seven Catholic sacraments:

gotquestions.org/seven-Catholic-sacraments.html

 

[Valtiel]

I know this is a bit much, but I hope some one can help me around all this…

 

[CARose]

V.

If you’re sincere about your questions, may I suggest you ask them one per thread and allow yourself to stay open to the responses. You’ve flooded a single thread with far too many issues to be properly addressed in an orderly fashion.

CARose

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good advice to open separate threads.

Let’s take one – transubstantiation. The Protestant position is;

“The doctrine of transubstantiation is taught by Catholics as being found in such Scripture passages as John 6:55, which says “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”, and Matthew 26:26, which says “Take and eat; this is my body.”** However, these are clearly metaphoric.** Christ says that His flesh is real food and blood is real drink, not, “My food is real flesh and my drink is real blood”. Furthermore, when Jesus says, “This is my body”, it means “This represents my body”. The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is because it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a “re-sacrifice” of Jesus Christ for our sins. Jesus died “once for all” and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18).”

“Clearly metaphoric?” Says who? How can Protestants – especially those which demand the Bible be literally interpreted – claim Jesus is “clearly metaphoric” here?

Look at this claim, "Christ says that His flesh is real food and blood is real drink, not, “My food is real flesh and my drink is real blood”.

Well, Duh! Jesus never claimed He always ate flesh and drank blood – He tells us HIS flesh is real food and HIS blood is real drink.

Finally, where in Catholic doctrine do you find the claim that we “re-sacrifice” Jesus? And how does that stack up againsst His explicit command that we eat His flesh and drink His blood?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

These issues have all been addressed in other threads. I agree with CARose that there are far too many issues raised in your initial postings to be effectively addressed in a single thread. I suggest you review the other threads and then refine your questions in their own threads.

I will just make a comment that is common to all of the arguments against Catholicism that you posted. They assume the Bible is the sole authority when Catholics do not believe that to be the case. The Bible is not a catechism. It was written by believers for believers and may be materially sufficient, but it is not - standing alone - the sole authority on doctrine. This hurdle - once overcome - clears the way to a better understanding of the development of Marian doctrine. Another way of recognizing Mary’s role is to recognize the typology of Mary in the OT (She is the true “ark” of the Word made Flesh, the new Eve and the spiritual mother of all the Church.)

Peace and Charity,

 

[_Joshua]

CARose:

V.

If you’re sincere about your questions, may I suggest you ask them one per thread and allow yourself to stay open to the responses. You’ve flooded a single thread with far too many issues to be properly addressed in an orderly fashion.

CARose

Exactly ! I was going to dive in and answer, but it’s Thursday 12/48 am and I’m tired, please valtiel, one or two questions at a time would suffice.

 

[challenger]

As far as Transubstantiation, I can but offer this for now: catholicchallenger.blogspot.com/2005/02/on-eucharist.html

 

[scylla]

Someone’s interpretation of the Bible used to debunk Catholic interpretation of the Bible makes no sense. Which Church is responsible for creating it? If I write a book then someone comes along 1500 years later and says I meant something else by it does that make sense?
First you have to prove who has the authority to interpret it, someone who makes up a church, or the Church established by Jesus Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One of the great mystries to me is how some Protestant sects can be so determined on the literal interpretation of the Bible that they tie themselves in knots trying to disprove evolution – but simply ignore the plain words of Christ when he says to eat his body and drink his blood. Or when he forbids divorce.

 

[Valtiel]

(Joshua):

Exactly ! I was going to dive in and answer, but it’s Thursday 12/48 am and I’m tired, please valtiel, one or two questions at a time would suffice.

I tried that last night, a moderator deleted it…

 

[joruus]

The most basic answer to the question about the Immaculate Conception is that Mary appeared (I believe the apparition at Lourdes) and said something like “I am Mary who was immaculately conceived.” However, I am not sure if this will convince a Protestant.

–Joruus

 

[joruus]

newadvent.net probably has excellent articles on these things as well. Check out the Catholic Encylopedia there.

 

[puzzleannie]

Valtiel:

When I was a protestant I used to rely on “Bible Questions Answered” website by a strict protestant theology.

I. . .Any way I went searching this site for some of their anti catholic responces to some questions and some ant catholic arguments, and some of them are quite hard for me to get around, most of them adress specific points that aren’t adressed in the catholic ansers library…

please check out the forum rules before you post.
post the links, not lengthy quotes from other sources.
the forums are slow enough as it is, this just adds a lot of weight we don’t need. Post the link, ask your question, and let the discussion begin. Also, one idea or topic per thread, and post on the appropriate forum. I for one don;t have the time or inclination to wade all through this stuff.
also, before you ask questions about basics, read the CA tracts and other articles on the home page

 

[Exporter]

Valtiel,

You say you are Catholic. You have attacked the very core of Catholocism - The Communion at Holy Mass and The Eucharist. From all the various questions you asked you are NOT Catholic.

Catholics must have a belief in Transubstantiation. Since you dont have faith in transubstantiation you had better NOT be going to Communion for it is a grave sin to partake of the Sacrament if you don’t believe it.

You need to go to Instruction either adult or high school level. The written word on a forum will not be enough for you. Go ask a Priest for Instruction. Why? It is because you ask questions like a Protestant.

 

[Valtiel]

Valtiel,

**
**
You say you are Catholic. You have attacked the very core of Catholocism - The Communion at Holy Mass and The Eucharist. From all the various questions you asked you are NOT Catholic.

I am attacking nothing! whats wrong with you, I explicitly said I placed these here for some one to help me debunk, not to attack my own faith. I left protestantism months ago (baptist to be exact), and it’s attacks like these I want to be prepared for, from protestants in the streets and on the net, even my very own brother and family! I have no clue why you think I’m anti cathoilc, I have not even hinted at such a thing, I have only asked how to defend my faith…

**
**
Catholics must have a belief in Transubstantiation. Since you dont have faith in transubstantiation you had better NOT be going to Communion for it is a grave sin to partake of the Sacrament if you don’t believe it.

Again these are protestant reasonings I have put here for some to help debunk, I never said I believed these reasonings, I don’t, I am a catholic now, I beleive in the entirety of the catholic catechism…

**
**
You need to go to Instruction either adult or high school level. The written word on a forum will not be enough for you. Go ask a Priest for Instruction. Why? It is because you ask questions like a Protestant.

Well I am now no longer relying on this forum, I’m nulling my account here. I can’t beleive you made such an ungodly and unchristian attack and one made on a wrong whim. You are a completely mixed up and confused individual, I hope you can straighten that out soon before you attack anymore of your own brethren like a heathen…

 

[DianJo]

Valtiel,
I hope you don’t cancel your account because someone here did not read your post thoroughly! You were right to admonish that person.

I hope it’s not too late, but I was going to suggest that you go to the Library at the CA home page. Every one of the objections you posted are answered there! You can print them off and use them with your Protestant friends.

Anyway, hope you hang around!